VintageCCG

On 12/9/2021 at 12:43 PM, RICHARD@SEA said:

QM2 is MARKETED as an Ocean Liner where  in fact is a multi purpose ship - Crossings & cruises.  The last of the true Ocean Liners were QE2 & the  FRANCE.

 

I enjoyed sailing on QM2 3x but she's an over sized cruise ship w a reinforced hull to handle the North Atlantic.

Sorry sir but your statement, and your reasoning, are incorrect.
The QM2 was built with the scantlings, the configuration, and the capabilities of an ocean liner rather than those of a cruise ship ... you know, the "reinforced hull to handle the North Atlantic" and that sort of thing.
Besides that, Cunard runs the QM2 on a scheduled series of crossings for most of the year [i.e. the definition of a "liner"] rather than the sort of circumscribed voyages that define a cruise ship. The fact that they also run a series of cruises for a limited period of the year does not alter that fact, just as it did not render the ocean liner QE2 a lesser entity when it, too, ran a few cruises as a sideline.
If they made an occasional run from Southampton to Cherbourg in between ocean crossings and worldwide voyages, I guess you'd insist it's a ferry!

I don't know that there's any further need to argue the toss.
Due to its construction and its primary usage, the RMS Queen Mary 2 does in fact fulfill the two fundamental requirements to be deemed an ocean liner.

5 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Where, and on which vessel(s), have you been "@SEA"?

Fulltime service as Navigation Officer / Commanding Officer aboard more than a dozen Canadian Coast Guard ships and a commercial cargo ship, and shorter stints aboard a couple of dozen more, of many descriptions. 
Also been involved with and headed up numerous shipbuilding projects.
Thus I know a wee bit about vessel vibration, and the description of this particular event seems highly suspect in terms of potential causes and effects.

Not saying the person experienced nothing at all, but there simply aren't a lot of plausible circumstances that would lead to the circumstances they described (which would require effectively at least a moderately high-amplitude vibration of the entire upper deck ... even while the ship is secured alongside!)

Their words: "It is not constant, but it IS frequent and it IS quite severe at times.  So bad that the TV rattled and we had to stuff a rolled-up towel behind it.  The bed vibrates like one of those therapy beds and it drums through your entire body.  It woke me up on several occasions and when it was present before going to bed, you could not get to sleep.  You can feel it in your chest and it made us both feel sick. The floor by the sofa also shakes.   ...  It was there in  both calm and choppy waters, and also in the port when stationary."

Combine these dubious accusations with comments saying that other occupants encountered no such vibrations in the same location, coupled with the OP's general tone of dissatisfaction with other unrelated aspects of their voyage, coupled with my own personal observations one deck below for two weeks, and I'm gonna conclude that it never happened ... or at least nothing close to what they described.

But you know ... please feel free to identify what could possibly cause such vibrations both underway in various sea states and while alongside.
Something that Cunard would be aware of (due to the inevitable litany of complaints affecting some of the priciest accommodations on board, short of the Grills) and would be utterly unwilling or incapable of mitigating.

Structural vibrations are typically due to resonance with the propulsion; due to slamming while proceeding at speed through heavy seas; due to icebreaking; or due to somebody operating a chipping hammer on the adjacent deck or bulkheads.
Minor rattling of panels might be due to any of those circumstances or maybe due to an HVAC ducting issue, but those are both easily identified and remedied.
Since the Deck 13 accommodations are open to the elements I considered the potential effects of high winds blowing through the passageways if the doors (both the inner and outer doors) were opened simultaneously at both ends, but that would be far-fetched and more likely to produce a humming sound and not to shake heavy furnishings to the extent described.

On 12/4/2021 at 10:54 AM, RICHARD@SEA said:

Thats ridiculous VintageCCG.... anyone that owns any type of vehicle knows there are various quality levels....on any ship the least issue was the vibrations felt from the paneling onboard.  As Carnivore owns Cunard I would imagine they went with the cheapest shipyard....

Also there is the fact that the ships original engineering designs accounts for issues  such as vibration & should of been remedied already....these cabins were added well after the ships innaugural season.

I wouldnt sail in one of the discussed cabins ...ever

Perhaps sir before commenting and seeking to contradict others, you might first consider whether you actually have anything of value to add to the discussion.

If you "imagine they went with the cheapest shipyard" then you imagine wrongly. Construction was by Chantiers de l'Atlantique (Saint-Nazaire) and the modifications were done by Blohm & Voss ... both are highly reputable yards.

I have spent four decades in the marine industry (at sea and ashore) and have overseen numerous shipbuilding projects and I can assure you that - while vibrations can indeed occur - the causes are traceable and correctable and the description cited here simply makes no sense. The comment describes the entire cabin shaking both underway and while secured alongside which suggests at worst a minor vibration in panelling or HVAC which would have been corrected easily and would not have shaken the furniture as described. Any possible causes of the event described simply don't withstand any scrutiny in this context.
Numerous other Deck 13 passengers have refuted any suggestion that there's any problem. I tend to believe them.
Personally I made a double Atlantic crossing immediately below on Deck 12 and noted an utter absence of whole-ship vibrations in that vicinity ... trust me I know the difference.
As to whether you deign to book one of those particular cabins or not (ever!), well I'm sure that is quite immaterial. Feel free to not book one, notwithstanding the absence of evidence for your rationale. I'm quite certain that Cunard will survive your decision.
Finally, the words are "should *have*", not "should of". Sheesh, man ... grammar matters. 

"Has anyone been in 13030?  It is right next to the sun deck and I’m quite worried about the vibration. My other option is staying in a sheltered balcony as the ship is sold out…"

As per the previous discussion two years ago, there is no rational reason why the Deck 13 staterooms would be vibrating other than potentially some minor rattling from ill-fitting panelling or an HVAC concern, or something of that nature. Maybe even some wind-generated humming when underway, but that's not what was described.

There is literally no ship-related action that would cause the bed and the TV to vibrate in the manner described, especially in calm weather and when stationary secured alongside. It just simply doesn't make sense.

And of course rivets can't "come loose" when the structures are welded ... there would be no rivets.

Most responses seem to indicate that there was no such vibration, so I wouldn't worry about it.

On 12/29/2019 at 11:24 AM, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

I've had a bag opened by an airline only once that I know of--I know because they left the TSA note. I pack almost everything into 2-gallon ziplock bags, so if my case is opened it's unlikely that small items will fall out.

 

Your bag wasn't opened "by an airline" ... it was opened by the TSA.

On 1/24/2020 at 10:22 AM, Jack E Dawson said:

I know I'm going to catch some flack for this but...

popping the cork on the Pol Acker

If we could find it in the States, we'd enjoy a bottle every day the QM2 departs SH for NYC

I believe that it's now available in the States.

Try Home Depot, in the aisle listed under "paint stripper".
lol

On 11/24/2019 at 8:48 AM, Austcruiser84 said:

Surely it is worth contacting Cunard about this? If you can wait past the first night, consider enquiring whether they will allow you to propose on the bridge as the sun rises. Perhaps it is a little cruel, but consider ‘arranging’ for one of the officers to come to your suite that morning, informing you that the Captain wishes to speak with you both regarding an incident during the muster drill the previous day. You go to the bridge. Then, as the Captain asks ‘well, what do you have to say for yourself?’ you get down on one knee and propose. Photos on/from the bridge would be pretty amazing. Then you can go and enjoy a champagne breakfast on your suite balcony, which will have been sorted by the butler and his team while you were on the bridge. 

Yeah, in the wheelhouse ... while underway?? That's not gonna happen.
And concocting an elaborate prank to propose marriage seems like a really bad idea.

On 12/6/2019 at 6:35 AM, diba said:

 If I get a spot on the ship I'll bring with me the canine version of Gravol, and stay with him the max time allotted.  I thought the ship was stable and you don't feel like you're on the ship? (Never taken a cruise in my life).

The QM2 is pretty much the most stable ship you will ever encounter. I say that as a professional mariner.

But the North Atlantic is the North Atlantic and it is a weeklong trip. 

The ship has active stabilizer fins that reduce the roll but they do nothing to mitigate any pitching motions (the bow going up and down) the ship might encounter if seas get rough. The ship's hull-form and the weather routing practiced by the navigators ensures that motions are minimized, but bear in mind the kennels are on Deck 12, albeit quite far aft where the motion is somewhat reduced.
The decision is obviously yours to make, but should an opening not appear in a QM2 kennel then I'm sure your beloved pet will survive a single flight of a few hours, undoubtedly completely unscathed. Typically it is the owners who are more traumatized by the notion of a flight than are most animals. Most flights involve less severe motion than a car ride of the same duration.
Hope it works out for you.

With respect I believe we've now identified the most First World Problem imaginable.

Did you 'use your words' and mention this abomination to the offending couple? You dont mention any such action in your post. I acknowledge that being direct is not a stereotypical British trait (my own heritage btw) but sometimes addressing one's concerns to one's table mates can be more effective than complaining after the fact.

Perhaps they were unaware it was an issue. Perhaps one of the offenders has social anxiety, or a non-visible medical issue , or needs help reading the menu, or any one of a dozen issues that prompt them to sit next to each other. From your description it was clearly important enough to them that they arrived early specifically for that purpose.

It hadn't been made clear in your example that the 6-top was three seats per side, which I'm guessing was the case. Could one person not sit at the head if they too found sitting opposite their partner to be an intolerable inconvenience? Or ask for another table assignment? Or enjoy the social mixing?

At the end of the day, perhaps this couple was indeed acting on a sense of entitlement. But if you didn't even broach the subject to them, then it's kind of on you.

On 11/20/2019 at 1:00 PM, siforest65 said:

 

On the Thursday evening we got talking to another couple who were also in the Yacht club and we had to leave because it was very rough up there especially on a slippy dance floor. Anyway the guy reckoned that the stabilisers weren’t deployed to save fuel. 
 

 

I guarantee that there is no possibility the stabilizers were retracted in rough weather to "save fuel".

Bear in mind though that the stabilizers mitigate rolling (side to side) and do nothing to mitigate pitching (the bow going up and down). But that movement should be minimal in any case.

Several folks have suggested the aft deck and the forward observation deck, during sailaway.
As a professional mariner involved with shipbuilding, those are about the only two locations that I would consider, from a nautical / naval architecture point of view. The interior of the ship, while attractive, might as well be a hotel as a nautical vessel (from a visual point of view).

It's easy enough to pre-book a photo session without arousing your soon-to-be-betrothed's suspicions, and the photographer can ensure optimal angle, background, and timing (with reshoots as appropriate).

Note the aft deck also has some covered areas, in case of rain. 

and this is the forward observation deck looking from near the centreline out towards the starboard bridgewing. Of course, this area is also covered from rain (the navigation bridge is immediately above).

On 11/22/2019 at 9:06 AM, Bedruthen said:

I learnt on our last cruise that there are some people who just wont budge, and who certainly won’t  entertain sitting in a different seat. We know this to be true as they were on our table in October. We had a rectangular table for 6 and they insisted that they had to sit next to each other and not opposite. They would start queuing for the dining room at least 20 minutes before the doors opened and despite gentle hints that we should all try sitting in a different place the next evening, there they were again in the same seats. Nowt so queer as folks.

So now we're criticizing a couple who prefers to sit together?
Seriously??

6 hours ago, Underwatr said:

On the other hand,

 

• Do you want to see the hull of the ship cutting through the water? Perhaps some flying fish if you're in tropical seas? If so, you may be disappointed with a stateroom higher than Deck 6. 

Just FWIW I saw all kinds of flying fish from my Deck 12 balcony, while crossing the Grand Banks off Newfoundland (so, hardly tropical).

On 10/18/2019 at 5:38 PM, seacruise9 said:

I agree with this. There have been occasions when I have felt considerable movement in the Commodore Club and the ship's library. The movement on Deck 13 forward would be even more pronounced.

 

Because I try to take the stairs rather than an elevator, I prefer staterooms on a more central deck. It would be a long climb from the Royal Court Theatre to Deck 13 after an evening show.

Just to provide a counter-perspective to these points:

- Movement - Yes, there is marginally greater movement at the upper decks forward than in the lower decks, amidship or aft ... but the QM2 is one of the most stable floating platforms on Earth. The stabilizers mitigate most of the roll, while the ship's length and hull-form minimize any pitching. At its worst the movement will rock you nicely to sleep, not knock you off your feet. Unless you are particular susceptible to motion sickness, I wouldn't worry about it.

- Distance - Bear in mind that everything is "downhill" from your location, so unless your mobility is restricted this should not be an issue. I stayed in 12-001 for back-to-back crossings last summer and I found it very convenient to nip down the stairs in mere seconds for dining and other activities when I was in a rush (which is equally as quick as riding the elevators), then to take the elevator back up later if I was "tired" after visiting the bar ... or to climb the stairs at a leisurely pace.

Deck 13 Inside vs Deck 12 Balcony - now that is another kettle of fish.
For my sole voyage with Cunard I was spoiled with a balcony (for a greatly reduced fare of about $100 more each way than an inside cabin on a lower deck), and it would be difficult to imagine going without that benefit. 
Morning, afternoon and evening I spent extended periods on my balcony or just enjoyed the sea-breeze and ocean sounds through the open door (ensuring that the "wind-tunnel effect" would not annoy my neighbours by whistling through the door, and would not present a hazard to my cabin steward while opening the door).
The views were awe-inspiring, including passing ships and sea-life (dolphins, whales, and flying fish). My only criticism was that the open decks are lit up like a Christmas tree, thus introducing too much light pollution to fully enjoy the night sky except from the open observation deck on Deck 11 across the front of the superstructure.
As the forward-most cabin on the starboard side, I also enjoyed a view into the starboard bridgewing.
Other than a glass shower door and the benefits of Britannia Club, I'm not aware of any inherent advantage to Deck 13 over Deck 12, and 13 has indoor access to fewer stairwells and elevators than the other decks without walking across the open deck. Not that I would mind the open air in any weather, but in high winds Cunard acts with an abundance of caution and closes doors to the open decks.

Having said all that, everyone has their own preferences and I understand that my opinion is a minority view.
I'm sure you will love your voyage, whatever the location.
 

2 hours ago, Gil3 said:

So we will stay in Southampton given the problem you mentionned with the train on sundays.

We'll  then probably visit the Seacity Museum and a walk around the old town, weather permitting. 

In Soton why not just rent a car for the day?
You might possibly have to get yourself to Southampton Airport for an early morning pick-up, as I did last summer between eastbound and westbound legs aboard QM2.
Gives you easy access to the Naval Dockyard (Mary Rose, RN Museum, HMS Victory, etc.) as well as the Gunwharf Quays shopping centre or Portchester Castle ... and you could stop in at a grocery store for any desired onboard snacks or other essentials. 

On 9/6/2018 at 1:49 PM, Craigrlewis said:

Liz Dawn and Jimmy Saville on a cruise Queen Victoria Mediterranean 2009. Both kept themselves to themselves and people didnt tend to bother them

 

Jimmy Saville???
Yes, it's probably best to avoid interacting socially with predatory sex offenders.

1 hour ago, bluemarble said:

Here's a link to youtube video I found showing a QE2 Baked Alaska Parade for the benefit of those who may not know what we're going on about.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Bq1TEGwpc

I can't imagine ANY Occupational Safety & Health issues with traipsing through a crowded dining room with dozens of flaming plates balanced aloft, in an environment replete with flammable fabrics ... all in the aid of serving an anachronistic dessert that nobody has ordered in restaurants since decades ago.
 

While in Corner Brook, you'll find some snack items that are only available in Canada, such as Ketchup chips (potato chips not fries), Coffee Crisp chocolate bars, and anything with President's Choice branding.

https://www.narcity.com/ca/on/toronto/lifestyle/35-tasty-canadian-snacks-that-are-not-available-in-the-united-states

Make sure to stop in at Tim Hortons for some Timbits ... although frankly, despite the ubiquitous national fetish for their coffee, I find Canadian McDonalds' coffee to be better quality (they poached Tim Hortons' previous supplier).

I gather there's a food truck at the Corner Brook Canadian Tire store that offers a mean lobster roll and chipwagon fries.

I mean, we could all post guesses and opinions as to what food items can/cannot be brought into Canada, or - I dunno - maybe check what the regulations actually say.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/information-for-consumers/travellers/what-can-i-bring-into-canada-/eng/1389648337546/1389648516990

Remember, this is no different than carrying food off an international airline flight.

If the previous port-of call is in the US, it looks like most items that you'd pack in a personal lunchbox should be permitted.
A small soft-sided insulated lunchbag could be carried, with a small cold-pack inside to preserve any meat or dairy or whatever.

Or visit a grocery store in CornerBrook and try some local delicacies. There is a Dominion Store, a Sobeys, and a WalMart.
It's worth looking for Indian Candy, which is small chunks of smoked salmon (often with maple), eaten cold and great for picnics. Also buy a jar of bakeapple jam to eat on board or to take home.

https://www.internationaltraveller.com/crazy-newfoundland-food/

There are also some good local beers, but my advice would be to avoid the Black Horse lager ... unless you enjoy breaking wind like a Clydesdale!

4 hours ago, Solent Richard said:

It would appear that I will be visiting your 'Home Town' before the end of the year. I have planned to walk up Signal Hill and make it to Quidi Vidi Battery.

 

 

Richard, while you're in St John's you might enjoy the following local attractions:

• Quidi Vidi Brewery https://quidividibrewery.ca/
• Ches's Fish and Chips http://www.chessfishandchips.ca/
• Rocket Bakery on Water Street http://rocketfood.ca/daily-menu/
• any Coast Guard ships tied up at the CCG Base or elsewhere around the harbour
  
   

On 7/21/2019 at 6:46 PM, Neuhoftraveler said:

 

After the soup was served, consumed, and the plates cleared, the server brought her fish.  Nothing for me.  I asked to have my meat course served immediately rather than simply sit and watch her eat, following which she would sit and watch me eat.  The server refused, as so did the owner/manager/front-of-house person:  "We cannot serve two courses at the same time."  This in a Michelin 1-star restaurant.  (Both fish and meat were pretty good, though.)

 

 

To me, that is being unnecessarily pedantic and pretentious.

If your wife's fish is her main course and your meat is your main, then surely it is more "correct" to render that insignificant adjustment, rather than make the guests feel inconvenienced and potentially insulted.

There are valid reasons for following certain conventions at mealtime, but this seems like an ill-considered hill upon which to stand one's (the restaurant's) ground.

On 5/4/2019 at 4:54 AM, chengkp75 said:

A "liner" does not sail on a specific "line", it is a liner because it makes trips back and forth across the ocean.  It has everything to do with itinerary, not design.
There is no structural "rules" or "classification" that delineates a "liner" from a "cruise ship".  ... >
Cunard has taken the title of "liner" because it provides a link to their past, and the culture of the ocean liners of the past, when there were no cruise ships.  ... >

To support and amplify Chengkp's explanation:
The origins of the "liner" designation go back to the past century (and late 19th century), and indeed referred traditionally to a regularly-scheduled run, published in advance, versus random and opportunistic cargoes.

Back in the 1950s, my father sailed as a navigating officer (later in command) with Brocklebanks (a cargo line under the Cunard umbrella) and with the Indo China Steam Navigation Company (ICSNC) run by Jardine Matheson (the 'Noble House' of Hong Kong).

Some of his early Brocklebanks ships were "cargo liners", making regular trans-Atlantic runs between the UK and the US and following a (fairly consistent) schedule carrying break-bulk (general) cargoes.

His later assignments were with Brocklebanks to South Asia (India, Vietnam, etc.) and the Middle East,  and subsequently with ICSNC to the South China Sea (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Macau) . These ships were operated as "tramp steamers", accepting cargoes on the spot market ... from various origin ports to various destinations as required, and carrying any cargo within their capabilities: zoo animals, locomotives, bagged rice, barrels, crates, lumber, etc.

By that definition, most cruise ships would be considered "passenger liners" since they typically ply scheduled runs to recurring ports of call ... albeit they often vary the departure ports and destinations according to season.

In addition to that criterion, the "ocean liner" designation is an informal tag intended to differentiate the more traditional-looking finer lines of the old-school passenger ships and the QM2, which also boasts a marginally less blocky-looking superstructure. And yes, the construction is more robust to render her more suitable for any sea-states that might be encountered than are the scantlings of the typical "cruise ship" designs.

And finally it is a matter of branding. Cunard takes great pains to distance their brand from the "lesser" brands, despite the fact that their QV and QE are virtual clones of the Vista Class operated by Holland America and others.
QV Captain Ian McNaught has asserted that the Queen Victoria "is a liner based on her classic decor".

Rather than chase down an unnecessarily pricey private car service, you could take a bus or train from Montreal to Québec, from where the Gare du Palais is only 1.1 km to Le Terminal ... 4 minutes by cab.
Literally walking distance if not for luggage.

On 7/8/2019 at 6:25 AM, PORT ROYAL said:

 

Balcony door open all night? 😱

Prepare to be taken to task............. 😉

Lol you may be right!
For the record, at night the outside air temperature was lower than room temp so the AC was not an issue.
And I made sure that there was no wind-tunnel effect at the door, nor any whistling through the door gap.

9 hours ago, Underwatr said:

 

Except that you're less likely to use a glass-front balcony on a transatlantic. If it's just for the view, book an OV. If you'd like some fresh air, you're more likely to be able to use an sheltered balcony without being subjected to strong winds. Plus you can actually see the ship cutting through the water from a sheltered balcony. On a higher balcony, Deck 7 gets in the way.

 

I often see comments like the above, and I cannot understand them.
I mean, I see nothing wrong with enjoying an obstructed view, or a sheltered balcony, or a lower deck ocean view, or even an inside stateroom, especially if the price is advantageous ... but I don't understand the disdain for an open balcony.

I took a return trans-Atlantic voyage last year in Aug/Sept in 12-001 (first cabin on the starboard side) for about the (discounted) cost of an inside cabin and I was on the balcony constantly:

• Balcony door open at night for the ocean breeze and the sound of the sea sloshing against the ship's side.
• Watching for passing ships and sea-life (whales, dolphins, flying fish)
• Peeking into the starboard bridgewing.

I worry that I've now been spoiled for anything else.